The basic idea of Subjective +/- is very simple: we assign +/- to players based on their actual contribution to a scoring play, as opposed to their mere presence on the ice. This project is an attempt to generate data that actually measures performance in a (rationally) subjective manner, providing a better sense of which players are genuinely responsible for game outcomes.

The rules

1) Assignment of pluses and minuses is based upon our collective evaluation. We must identify a direct link between a player's actions and the scoring of a goal in order for a point to be assigned.

1a) A "plus" is assigned when a player actually contributes to a goal by his actions (or, rarely, by his non-actions). This could be as obvious as shooting the puck in the net, or as subtle as a screen or interference away from the puck. The bottom line is: his actions must have a tangible impact upon the sequence of events that lead directly to the goal.

1b) A "minus" is assigned when a player actually contributes to a goal-against by his actions (or, often, by his non-actions). A "minus" is not necessarily related to defensive play; offensive errors which lead directly to a goal against, such as own-goals and turnovers in front of the net, may count as minuses. Generally a player will not be given a minus if he made a correct defensive play and was defeated by circumstance or extraordinary skill (ie, we aren't holding unstoppable goals against him).

2) Only goals scored at even strength will be counted. Unlike standard +/-, special teams goals are completely ignored.

2a) Goals scored in the immediate sequence of events following the end of a power play will not be counted, even if they are technically ES goals. The idea is that a team is still essentially shorthanded for a few seconds after a penalty ends.

3) Empty net goals will not be counted.

4) Goals that are judged to be the fault of the goaltender will not be counted. The idea is to hold players responsible for things that are reasonably under their control. Goaltender errors are tabulated as a novelty stat.

Procedure

I will review each game and post an initial summary of points awarded. This is intended to be a draft, not a final judgment. To the best of my ability, a video showing full replays of each goal will also be posted.

All forumers are welcome and encouraged to review the video and note any potential errors or omissions. This crowd-sourcing of our data is our quality control, and ensures that our results are valid and useful. Please speak up if you see something that needs to be changed!

If there is a substantial amount of disagreement over a point, it will go in the Margin of Error (MoE) column. This provides some transparency as to the accuracy of the final numbers.

This being our third season, we are going to start seeing some interesting cumulative results. I hope this will continue to be a fun, worthwhile project for the Canes board.

1st 13:30 Dvorak (Skinner, Faulk)
+1 Dvorak - He made literally the only play that could have resulted in a goal, and it worked out pretty well.
+1 Skinner - After seeing the reply a bunch of times at multiple angles, I'm still not sure whether he really meant to float that pass out there so perfectly, or whether it was just a dump-in that deflected perfectly. Either way, he did a nice job helping defensively to create the turnover, and then jumping up to make the rush a real threat.
+1 Faulk - Even at this early juncture in the season it's obvious that Faulk will be asked to take a more aggressive posture on the rush, and he played it very well here.
+1 Nash - Nice job creating a turnover on the boards, and then looking immediately to move the puck to an offensive option.

ES GOALS AGAINST

3rd 0:42 Abdelkader (Zetterberg, Ericsson)
-1 Tlusty - I don't know what had him so distracted here, but it's obvious that Tlusty's head was not in the game when he stepped on the ice for that shift. He just kind of drifts into the play, and watches the puck float right past him to the lane he's supposed to be covering.

OT 3:13 Weiss (Franzen, Kronwall)
-1 Bellemore - A slower-footed defenseman like Bellemore has no business stepping out to try a poke-check during a non-threatening rush in OT. This play demonstrates why -- Weiss was able to walk right down the lane for what should have been Bellemore's rebound.
-1 Eric Staal - What coaches like to call "drive by defense".

1st 8:11 Harrison (Murphy, Skinner)
+1 Harrison - Harrison seems to understand "just put it on net" better than any other player. The king of garbage goals, this guy.
+1 Murphy - Nice slap-pass to freeze the Philly forwards, and it would have been even prettier if Harrison had read it properly.
+1 Skinner - He has made a habit of abusing Timonen, and this little demonstration was no different.

2nd 3:01 Luke Schenn (Newbury)
-1 Lindholm - Lost the faceoff cleanly, and he probably could've read the play better in the aftermath.
-1 Bowman - He can't take the long way around to the puck if he's going to line up on the inside. He let himself get screened and that's where everything broke down.

I really appreciate you finding the time and putting in the effort for this project. I know what it's like with little ones and whatnot. it's great and like I said before, you have an eye for the subtlties. we all tend to see things differently sometimes and sometimes it's funny and seems like two different guys are watching different games. and, the vids when available are nice to go back to. I'll try to participate and throw in my 2 cents. looking forward to a heavy 'plus' side of the chart this year. thanks again.

2nd 13:24 Eric Staal (Faulk, Sekera)
+1 Semin - Thoroughly schools Brandon Sutter in the corner, stripping him of the puck, bodying his way to open ice and then dancing away from two Pens to retain possession. That's a $7m/yr kind of hockey play.
+1 Sekera - Simple, smart puck rotation.
+1 Faulk - You know a guy is comfortable with the puck when his shots look like this one. He could have shot as hard and high as he could, but instead he puts it soft and low and actually a little wide of the net expecting a deflection. As fluky as the tip-in turned out to be, Faulk was most definitely expecting Staal to do something with that puck.
+1 Eric Staal - To some extent you make your own luck, but the bigger picture here is that he was actually going to the net and looking for a dirty deflection, which is a change of pace from his past few games and ended up getting results.

3rd 3:13 Gerbe (Dwyer, Sekera)
+1 Gerbe - Nice skillful zone entry, and of course the goal itself.
+1 Sekera - Not only for a smart pinch, but also for a really intelligent shot on goal. Sekera managed to draw FOUR Pens toward the boards, and immediately recognized the 2-on-1 that had been created at the net. He didn't need a great shot, just a rebound.

ES GOALS AGAINST

2nd 1:04 Martin (Orpik, Crosby)
-1 Semin - This goal is the result of three different players switching positions -- Bellemore becomes the "right wing", and Staal becomes the "left wing". The wild card is Semin, who covers back nicely for Bellemore, then circles behind the net and becomes a "defenseman", then goes back to his position at left wi... no wait, there's Staal... maybe go back to right wi... no wait, there's Bellemore... maybe drift over into the middle of the... oh ****.

3rd 5:03 Jokinen (Malkin, Maataa)
-1 Sutter - You have to know where the superstars are on the ice, especially when you're chasing Beau Bennett so hard that you overskate Evgeni Malkin.
-1 Dvorak - Kind of had the "deer in headlights" look when he saw Malkin coming.
-1 Hainsey - Tough play for him because it developed so fast, but he needed to come up and challenge that shot a split-second faster since he had no assignment near the crease.

3rd 8:24 Glass (Vitale)
-1 Dwyer - This was a total cluster**** between the two guys on the inside of the faceoff. The play began with both Dwyer and Murphy between Vitale and the goal. It's ridiculous that within 2 seconds Vitale ended up in front of the net by himself, depositing his own rebound. Accomplice #1 here is Dwyer, who got beaten on the drop and put a weak-ass stick check on Vitale rather than playing the body, which set up Murphy for failure.
-1 Murphy - Regardless of how fast Vitale was on him, Murphy is guilty of trying to play this with a soft stick rather than putting his body between Vitale and the goal. As the inside defenseman, he has to go hard on any puck that's just sitting in the circle like that.

2nd 12:58 Lindholm (Skinner, Murphy)
edit: Lindholm gets a + here for creating a turnover in the offensive zone, making a nice curl move to retain possession and getting the puck on net. This will get a point in the MoE column since one could argue that he simply got lucky that the defense screwed up. See discussion below.

3rd 6:59 Gerbe (Jordan Staal, Faulk)
+1 Dvorak - That's some really solid forechecking and a wise pass to the point rather than the slot.
+1 Faulk - Smart, quick shot when he didn't have time for a slapper.
+1 Jordan Staal - This is how he needs to be getting his points -- going hard after rebounds and knocking the puck loose for his teammates.
+1 Gerbe - He just seems to find pucks in the slot, doesn't he?

ES GOALS AGAINST

1st 5:33 Chimera (Fehr, Carlson)
Goaltender Error - Khudobin

2nd 13:52 Ovechkin (Oleksy, Backstrom)
-1 Lindholm - He has simply got to be quicker on that puck up the boards, especially against a first-line where they will hurt you if you don't clear the zone.
-1 Skinner - Though he had good intentions, common sense says that it's a bad idea to backhand the puck right up the slot like that. Rookie-ish mistake, and he will need to get that sorted before he ever sniffs time at center.

Depends who you ask. To me, Lindholm could get a + because the curl before the shot was a beauty, even if the shot itself was terrible.

That being said, I'm completely fine with there being no + on that play, it's all a matter of perspective.

Click to expand...

You could view it as an error in baseball- you don't get a hit when your reaching is the result of the fielder making a mistake.

Still, getting shots on net is important, and if one goes in, I think it should get a plus. Lots of goals in the NHL are scored from deflections off legs, sticks and everything else out front, and just putting the puck in the position for that to happen is a useful hockey play.

not trying to be critical and I understand the purpose of this project along with the time and effort you put into. like I said before it's great. however, reading through I notice a couple of things. you are pretty rough on some things (-'s) and pretty liberal on (+'s). -'s given for plays that the guy had no chance on, was in position, etc. ignoring that the other team just executed an excellent play. +'s given for simple standard run of the mill hockey plays that happen almost every shift but don't result in a goal. just an observation and comment.

I think -'s should be given for obvious screw ups or mistakes, bad decisions, blunders, etc. and +'s given for nice plays, good execution, talent demonstrations, etc.. again, I appreciate the time and effort you put in and enjoy the project but doling out + and - for flukes or plays that are near impossible to defend against seems a bit over board if you get my meaning. goalie error is easier to ascertain but if a guy is screened but still obviously mishandles the puck resulting in a goal is it really an error? idk I know it's a difficult thing to sort all out I guess.

not trying to be critical and I understand the purpose of this project along with the time and effort you put into. like I said before it's great. however, reading through I notice a couple of things. you are pretty rough on some things (-'s) and pretty liberal on (+'s). -'s given for plays that the guy had no chance on, was in position, etc. ignoring that the other team just executed an excellent play. +'s given for simple standard run of the mill hockey plays that happen almost every shift but don't result in a goal. just an observation and comment.

I think -'s should be given for obvious screw ups or mistakes, bad decisions, blunders, etc. and +'s given for nice plays, good execution, talent demonstrations, etc.. again, I appreciate the time and effort you put in and enjoy the project but doling out + and - for flukes or plays that are near impossible to defend against seems a bit over board if you get my meaning. goalie error is easier to ascertain but if a guy is screened but still obviously mishandles the puck resulting in a goal is it really an error? idk I know it's a difficult thing to sort all out I guess.

Click to expand...

Disagree. This isn't a "who's making the most impressive plays on the ice" project. This is a "better +/- stat" project.

The way I view this, basically, is the trailing dman who just stepped on the ice and has nothing to do with his team scoring a goal doesn't get a free +. The center in perfect position, filling his lane correctly, only for Gleason to fall over while "covering" his man and giving up a breakaway doesn't get a minus.

That does NOT mean that we shouldn't reward players for making "standard" hockey plays that lead to goals. In the end, if they're involved in the goal being scored, they deserve a plus (arguably the point of +/- in the first place). If they're responsible for the goal against (in any capacity, not just a major screwup) they get a minus.

AD explained it probably better than I could have. Essentially we're taking regular +/- and subtracting the guys who had nothing to do with the play. Rocky, I see your point particularly in regard to plays like the Jokinen goal where Hainsey was just the tiniest bit slow stepping up and covering for a teammate. That's a tough one and really, it's just down to a judgment call in cases like that over whether he had a legitimate opportunity to make the correct play.

This method has led me to a few revelations about the nature of the game in the past couple of years:

- Probably the biggest thing -- offensive success tends to involve 3-4 players on a typical play, while defensive failures tend to be caused by only 1 or 2. Rare is the case where you see an entire defensive group breaking down at even strength. It only takes one guy making a bad read, covering the wrong lane, failing to get to his spot on time, and everything falls apart. At the other end of the ice, rare is the play where one guy makes that much of a difference. What this reveals at a more theoretical level is that offensive breakthroughs tend to occur as a result of group attacks that pinpoint and attack a weakness in the defensive structure. Confusing and outnumbering opponents is often more important in hockey than having the better athletes.

- Defensemen tend to get brutalized in this ranking because they rack up so many minuses, but that's the nature of the sport. It's extremely difficult for a defenseman to look good for an entire game, and the ones who do are often underrated (see: Sekera and Faulk, who have NO minuses this season against top competition).

- By the by, can you guess which two defensemen are tied for the highest number of pluses on this team over the past three years? Harrison and Gleason. Despite having run through a laundry list of one-way, all-offense-no-defense PP specialists, it's been Harrison and Gleason getting it done for us offensively at even strength. What they have in common is that they both shoot the puck low and hard without picking a corner, and in Gleason's case there's also a tendency to make the smart swing pass while under pressure. If you were taking a "moneyball" approach to building this team, you'd want Jay Harrison over virtually everyone else we've rolled out since 2010. Kind of crazy to think about it that way.

Also, confused by the MoE usage there. Lindholm gets a +1 in the "goals for" column, AND a +1 in the MoE column?

Click to expand...

Yeah, basically the MoE column is just there to capture the number of times that player has had "questionable" points assigned. So if he has one debatable plus and two debatable minuses at the end of the season, it will say "+1, -2". That way you have a sense for the range of where his numbers might have ended up if we were more forgiving or less forgiving in doling out points.

The MoE numbers have been really small across the board so far, but I figure it's better to have it there just as a matter of quality control and perspective.

Yeah, basically the MoE column is just there to capture the number of times that player has had "questionable" points assigned. So if he has one debatable plus and two debatable minuses at the end of the season, it will say "+1, -2". That way you have a sense for the range of where his numbers might have ended up if we were more forgiving or less forgiving in doling out points.

The MoE numbers have been really small across the board so far, but I figure it's better to have it there just as a matter of quality control and perspective.

Click to expand...

Shouldn't he have "-1"? A minus in MoE for each plus, and a plus in MoE for each minus? Right now it looks like Lindholm is -1, with a MoE that could bring that back up to even, because it says "+1."

In the end, it's just personal preference of documenting a stat, but seems to me that this way is easier, having a -1 in there so we can say "he's at -1, but he COULD be at -2."